John Oliver and Bill Nye Show Why Cable News Climate "Debates" Are So Ridiculous

[Oldgamer]

For over a decade, people like me have been explaining why so-called "balanced" coverage—in which journalists devote "equal time" to both sides of a "controversy"—is totally inappropriate when it comes to climate change. But many in the mass media, especially cable shows, have continued to regularly host climate "debates" in which one skeptic debates one climate science defender…or, lately, in which one skeptic debates Bill Nye the Science Guy.

That's what made John Oliver's climate segment last night, on his new HBO show Last Week Tonight, so perfect. Not only did Oliver explain why there's no debate at all over global warming; he then demonstrated what an actually appropriate televised debate might look like. Bill Nye appeared on set, as did a climate "skeptic," but then 96 other scientists appeared at Nye's side (hilariously crowding onto the set) while their opponent got two additional supporters. These numbers—97 and 3—were based on a now-world famous study of published climate science papers, showing that 97 percent of studies that took a stand on whether humans are warming the planet said the answer is "yes."

Warning: If you watch this, you'll never be able to watch a climate "debate" again without rolling your eyes: Video Link Here

Link to article

What Bill Nye doesn't understand is he is dealing with some really retarded people. It is like arguing with a brick wall.. why bother?

 

[Oldgamer]

The video is fucking hilarious..

 

[surfsatwerk]

The video is fucking hilarious..

Don't pull a dave and start replying to your own posts, you're better than that.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Don't pull a dave and start replying to your own posts, you're better than that.

Maybe McOwned forgot he was logged in as Oldgamer.

 

[Thebobo]

Woot another Brit for the right to hate.
Very funny btw.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Some guy - ah, yes! It's the good old; a family I use to live next to, knows someone that once heard of a girl that once dated a guy that had a cousin who had a friend that knew someone that overheard on a crowded bus that climate change may not be accurate.

It is used against ACA, Climate Change, fair treatment of the working class, equality, etc.

Never mind the facts, real stories and evidence - all that stuff is clearly fake. The REALITY is Some Guy.

 

[michal1980]

So now science is like an election, the more votes you have the more right you are?

Damn all those humans who have been changing earths temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[ralfy]

"What does past climate change tell us about global warming?"

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

 

[jhbball]

So now science is like an election, the more votes you have the more right you are?

Damn all those humans who have been changing earths temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years.

Damn dude, you should show these graphs to the scientists, to disprove GW once and for all!

 

[michal1980]

Damn dude, you should show these graphs to the scientists, to disprove GW once and for all!

way to attack a point I did not make.

 

[thraashman]

So now science is like an election, the more votes you have the more right you are?

Damn all those humans who have been changing earths temperatures for hundreds of thousands of years.

Ah yes, the fucktard version of climatology brought to us by michal1980. "Climate has changed before humans, so why should that stop us from deliberately fucking up the world today? I eat my own feces!"

 

[Jaskalas]

These numbers—97 and 3—were based on a now-world famous study of published climate science papers, showing that 97 percent of studies that took a stand on whether humans are warming the planet said the answer is "yes."

Your 97% is, in reality, 1.5%

• 12,271 papers
• 4,010 held an opinion
• 65 of those say man controls the climate

All your side has is lies. It's understandable, the entire basis of your argument is the temperature rise during the 80s and 90s. You take the short term trend of a 20 year period and dramatize it to achieve political goals.

Climate Sensitivity is not what the political activists claim it is.

 

[thraashman]

Your 97% is, in reality, 1.5%

• 12,271 papers
• 4,010 held an opinion
• 65 of those say man controls the climate

All your side has is lies. It's understandable, the entire basis of your argument is the temperature rise during the 80s and 90s. You take the short term trend of a 20 year period and dramatize it to achieve political goals.

Climate Sensitivity is not what the political activists claim it is.

Yes, only 65 say that man is the cause of global warming. Most of the rest of them range from man is a driving factor, man is a major contributor, man is a partial contributor. And that's where the rest of that 97% comes from. It's even in your link.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yes, only 65 say that man is the cause of global warming. Most of the rest of them range from man is a driving factor, man is a major contributor, man is a partial contributor. And that's where the rest of that 97% comes from. It's even in your link.

What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk... Have at you!

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, only 65 say that man is the cause of global warming. Most of the rest of them range from man is a driving factor, man is a major contributor, man is a partial contributor. And that's where the rest of that 97% comes from. It's even in your link.

Only the 65 papers in Category 1 do that.

 

[blake0812]

what is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk... Have at you!

die monster, you don't belong in this world!

 

[thraashman]

What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk... Have at you!

AH. I'm so mad at myself that I had to look up that quote considering how many times I've played that game!

 

[fskimospy]

Only the 65 papers in Category 1 do that.

You are not portraying this honestly. If we take things your way that means that a paper about how increased CO2 levels leads to a warmer atmosphere wouldn't count as a paper endorsing AGW. That's silliness.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yawn. Why are the those pushing the global warming stuff so concerned with winning over the people? Science isn't a popularity contest -- time will tell us who is right. Screaming that "it's real, we have to do something!" is fine, but ultimately useless if you don't come to the table with realistic feasible proposals or solutions. Until that happens, it's all a moot point.

 

[smackababy]

You are not portraying this honestly. If we take things your way that means that a paper about how increased CO2 levels leads to a warmer atmosphere wouldn't count as a paper endorsing AGW. That's silliness.

I think his argument was that man is not really agreed upon to be a major contributing factor in climate change, not that it doesn't exist.

 

[thraashman]

Yawn. Why are the those pushing the global warming stuff so concerned with winning over the people? Science isn't a popularity contest -- time will tell us who is right. Screaming that "it's real, we have to do something!" is fine, but ultimately useless if you don't come to the table with realistic feasible proposals or solutions. Until that happens, it's all a moot point.

The problem is that if too many people don't accept it then no solutions will be considered realistic or feasible. So the first step is to convince people that there is a need before you convince them to invest in the product.

 

[trenchfoot]

Man made climate change doesn't exist because it gets in the way of doing the business of making profits hand over fist.

Just think how accepted this idea of human induced climate change would be if big business decided that the only way to increase the rate of return on an investment was to buy into the idea.

 

[desy]

"Just think how accepted this idea of human induced climate change would be if big business decided that the only way to increase the rate of return on an investment was to buy into the idea."
Bingo
There is lots of ways to make money off of transitioning however the Koch brothers are invested in oil

 

[PokerGuy]

The problem is that if too many people don't accept it then no solutions will be considered realistic or feasible. So the first step is to convince people that there is a need before you convince them to invest in the product.

If convincing people that there is a need is their goal, they're doing a terrible job of it. Allowing eco nuts and people pushing political agendas to hijack the issue just pushes more rational people into the "if we're not sure, don't do anything yet" camp.

 

[Subyman]

My uncle is an airplane pilot. We went up in his two seater one day and flew over a rural area. While we were flying he tipped the wing down and we looked over miles of land. He said, "From up here you can tell how little effect man has on the Earth and how insignificant we are." I looked down and saw field after field of crops, roads intersecting, and even a huge man-made lake. I thought to myself, there isn't one thing in sight that man hasn't touched and changed. That land used to all be forest.

I find it fascinating that people think the earth is too large for us to have an effect on. I think we as a people are still in the mindset of a preindustrial world that only had a few hundred million people living on it. We now pump millions of metric tons of gasses into the atmosphere daily and have 7+ billion people trying to make their way in the world.

We think singular, but we affect the globe as a enormous society.